title: Whole breast radiotherapy in prone and supine position: is there a place for multi-beam IMRT?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Early stage breast cancer patients are long-term survivors and finding techniques that may lower acute and late radiotherapy-induced toxicity is crucial. We compared dosimetry of wedged tangential fields (W-TF), tangential field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (TF-IMRT) and multi-beam IMRT (MB-IMRT) in prone and supine positions for whole-breast irradiation (WBI).
  
  
  METHODS
  MB-IMRT, TF-IMRT and W-TF treatment plans in prone and supine positions were generated for 18 unselected breast cancer patients. The median prescription dose to the optimized planning target volume (PTVoptim) was 50 Gy in 25 fractions. Dose-volume parameters and indices of conformity were calculated for the PTVoptim and organs-at-risk.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Prone MB-IMRT achieved (p<0.01) the best dose homogeneity compared to WTF in the prone position and WTF and MB-IMRT in the supine position. Prone IMRT scored better for all dose indices. MB-IMRT lowered lung and heart dose (p<0.05) in supine position, however the lowest ipsilateral lung doses (p<0.001) were in prone position. In left-sided breast cancer patients population averages for heart sparing by radiation dose was better in prone position; though non-significant. For patients with a PTVoptim volume ≥600 cc heart dose was consistently lower in prone position; while for patients with smaller breasts heart dose metrics were comparable or worse compared to supine MB-IMRT. Doses to the contralateral breast were similar regardless of position or technique. Dosimetry of prone MB-IMRT and prone TF-IMRT differed slightly.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  MB-IMRT is the treatment of choice in supine position. Prone IMRT is superior to any supine treatment for right-sided breast cancer patients and left-sided breast cancer patients with larger breasts by obtaining better conformity indices, target dose distribution and sparing of the organs-at-risk. The influence of treatment techniques in prone position is less pronounced; moreover dosimetric differences between TF-IMRT and MB-IMRT are rather small.
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiotherapy, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, Ghent 9000, Belgium. thomas.mulliez@uzgent.be
authors.forename: Thomas
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Mulliez
authors.forename: Bruno
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Speleers
authors.forename: Indira
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Madani
authors.forename: Werner
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: De Gersem
authors.forename: Liv
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Veldeman
authors.forename: Wilfried
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: De Neve
mesh_terms: D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D058958:Organs at Risk / Q000528:radiation effects; D016684:Prone Position; D011874:Radiometry; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D050397:Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated / Q000379:methods*; D016683:Supine Position